Denver asks residents to accept more density; residents should ask more of the city

“Are we warehousing people, or are we building a livable city?”

This question, fielded during the municipal election, is one that remains etched in my mind. I see two camps emerging in Denver: those that seek to build faster and bigger as the way to a thriving city, and those that want to preserve some semblance of an accessible city. Some call this the NIMBY-YIMBY dichotomy. It is, however, far more complex.

The recently implemented citywide Denveright plan — which truly highlighted this divide — has largely been viewed by neighborhood leaders as a disingenuous way to open up the city to density and development quickly without giving resident concerns over transit, affordability, open space and design the same sense of urgency. City leadership, in response, called Denveright a big-picture strategy and pointed to the Neighborhood Planning Initiative (NPI) as a way for neighbors to weigh in on the future of their local places with specifics.

Presently, that NPI process is playing out along the Colfax Avenue corridor. One of three NPIs underway is the East Area Plan — impacting Colfax from Colorado Boulevard to Yosemite. The recently released draft plan is resulting in the same divided perspective Denveright created between residents and development. Why? It depends on who you ask. The pro-growth neighbors claim those pushing back on the plan are elitist and stuck in the past, that fast density will slow ever-increasing housing costs. The slow-the-growth neighbors claim that this shouldn’t be a race to “warehouse” people and that some neighborhoods should be protected if we are to retain some semblance of being a livable city.

So, who is right? What both camps are missing is — that’s not the point. Holding the city accountable to invest in our neighborhoods now — not as part of a “deal” to be brokered over density — is.

The EAP as it is currently written is heavily focused on development and density and how to allow more of it. In return for agreeing to growth, the plan notes that neighborhoods would potentially receive increased affordability, design standards, and perhaps other things such as increased open space requirements and community benefits. The plan

also suggests improvements to street safety and sustainability initiatives.

Here’s the sticking point: adoption of the East Area Plan would immediately allow denser development, with some strings attached for developers. Meanwhile, there is no mandate for the timely implementation of the plan elements that would potentially make this density more livable.

Perhaps the largest and most concerning item missing from this plan is the timely integration of transit. For more than 15 years there has been talk of bringing improved transit services to Colfax Avenue. First, the streetcar. Then, Bus Rapid Transit for which $70 million was included in the bond passed in 2017. In early August, however, the city announced a $125 million funding shortfall for Bus Rapid Transit that could delay the project for a decade or more, with no plan as to how interim increases in transit might be funded. This, even as we open the door — through the EAP — to massive increases in density in an already extremely congested area.

I do believe we can all agree that we need this city to work now, and we need it to work as more people come. However, Denveright, and now the Neighborhood Planning Initiatives, are pitting us against each other philosophically while missing the point that we are in uncharted territory. There is no evidence that more density will make Denver more affordable or livable. There is also no guaranty that putting the brakes on development will. Regardless, we shouldn’t have to be bartering with our city through a planning process to get the things we need to thrive in our neighborhoods, and getting these things shouldn’t hinge on us all allowing development to intensify beyond our comfort zones.

If we want the East Area Plan — and future neighborhood plans — to succeed the plans must recognize reality. A changing city is an inevitability, but density should not be viewed as the singular golden ticket to a prosperous future. If the city wishes to ask more of us, we can — and should — do the same of the city.

Jamie Giellis is president of the urban planning consulting firm Centro Inc. and a former mayoral candidate for the city of Denver. She can be reached atjamie @becentro.com.